Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici declares that he “obviously” intends to vote for the party he had led for eight years in next month’s general election. But his support is greatly qualified.

The Malta Labour Party has changed considerably since Dr Mifsud Bonnici stepped down from its top post in 1992. It has even changed in appearance: its name officially became “Partit Laburista,” its iconic emblem was transformed into a more abstract design, the traditional red has largely made way for white and other colours, and the party’s official anthem is rarely heard.

But when this issue is brought up, Dr Mifsud Bonnici states that these external changes do not trouble him, as long as the party’s soul is left intact. The follow-up question is obvious.

“I do not recognise today’s party as the one I remembered... I feel that its soul is no longer there,” he replies.

Then again, faced with a choice between the PL and the Nationalist Party, he feels that his choice, at this point of time, is obvious.

“The PN is the worst choice,” he states. “Labour is the least worst. Not the best.”

But he is confident that Labour will return to its roots. Ironically, given Labour’s present emphasis on building a movement around it, he is hoping for the creation of new movement within the party – and is convinced that this will take place.

“The party’s roots are still there, and I am certain that they will fight for independence and freedom, neutrality and nonalignment, and for an economic system that considers the social aspect and is not just based on profit,” he maintains.

As that statement may suggest, Dr Mifsud Bonnici’s greatest bone of contention with his former party is its U-turn on EU membership, which he has consistently opposed. Labour had opposed EU membership ahead of the 2003 referendum, but under present leader Joseph Muscat – a former MEP – it is now staunchly pro-EU.

Labour’s former leader earns little, if any, recognition from the party nowadays – Dr Muscat has even argued that Nationalist Party Eddie Fenech Adami was needed in 1987.

Unsurprisingly, Dr Mifsud Bonnici disagrees with this assessment, castigating Dr Fenech Adami for his pro-EU stance – “he betrayed Maltese nationalism” – and for his economic policies. He remarked that Dr Fenech Adami paved the way for “money no problem” governance, blaming this for Malta’s present debt.

“It makes no sense to elevate Eddie Fenech Adami in this manner,” he states.

“If I wanted to win votes I would not state this, but objectively this is how I see things.”

The EU and the economy

Ultimately, the former prime minister’ economic policy has remained largely unchanged over the years: he argues that Malta should aim for self-sufficiency, with a local industry which produces as much of the goods the local economy requires as possible.

This economic viewpoint helps effect Dr Mifsud Bonnici’s opinion of the EU, as he feels that its own economic policy has seen European capital invested elsewhere, where wages are cheaper, causing unemployment to rise.

But haven’t standards of living been improving in Malta over the past years?

Dr Mifsud Bonnici disagrees, stating that Malta and the EU have been characterised by increasing poverty rates, increasing inequality and increasing public debt. The EU’s economic policy, he insists, helps the well-off but leaves most of the population at bay, adding that helping the masses would see everyone better off.

The former prime minister stresses his opposition to the liberalisation of the economy, as well as the privatisation of strategic assets and the outsourcing of jobs previously carried out in the public sector. This opposition leads him to question one of the Labour Party’s key election promises: cheaper energy bills through a gas plant built by private investors with the agreement of Enemalta.

He is adamant that any electricity-related project should be built and owned by the state. When asked to comment on Labour’s pledge to secure a long-term agreement on price, he points out that there was an inherent risk to relying on an electricity supplier one had no control over.

Economic matters aside, though, the main reason behind Dr Mifsud Bonnici’s staunch opposition to the EU appears to be his concerns at surrendering the sovereignty Malta had gained.

He believes that the EU is becoming more assertive, at the expense of member states’ freedom and independence. So much so, that he argues that EU membership fails to respect Malta’s neutrality and non-alignment, which was enshrined in the constitution when he was prime minister, in 1987.

“In the EU, the will of the majority of the Maltese is not worth anything... a majority of EU countries can dictate the policies we follow,” he observes.

Of course, in recent days, the PN has been strongly emphasising Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s “achievement” in EU budget negotiations, which will see Malta receive €1,128 million in EU funds between 2014 and 2020. Doesn’t Dr Mifsud Bonnici believe this is a good thing?

The short answer is no. First off, Dr Mifsud Bonnici notes, Malta had received €1,300 million for the 2006-2013 funding period, and that Malta’s own financial contribution to the EU has been increasing, calculating that the net contribution to Malta was now, on average, around €30 million less. In this context, he said, it was hard to describe the €1,128 million allocation as a success.

The former prime minister stands his ground when asked whether he agreed that ultimately, a net contribution of €627 million was a positive thing. It may be positive on paper, he states, but he insists that Malta ends up worse off when one takes into account the costs it has to bear to conform to EU regulations.

Reflecting his autarkic beliefs, he also points out that companies based in other EU countries often end up winning public tenders, causing money to flow out of the country.

The PN and the past

Dr Mifsud Bonnici states that the PN sought EU membership for two main reasons: it feared that the vacuum created when British troops were withdrawn from Malta in 1979 would be filled by an undesirable power – either Libya or the Soviet Union – and it sought to anchor itself with democratic European countries to preserve a democracy which, it felt, was under threat under a Labour government.

He insists that the PN was wrong on both counts, remarking that as prime minister, he would not have allowed the country to be subservient to any foreign power.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici also defends his government’s democratic record, betraying emotion when he states that Malta’s democracy was never threatened.

He brings up the follow-up to the controversial 1981 election – which saw Labour elected to government with a majority of seats but a minority of votes – as an example, pointing out how PN MPs were co-opted to parliament after a lengthy boycott meant they had effectively left their seats vacant, and how Labour did not abuse a situation which allowed it to amend the constitution as it saw fit.

The 1987 constitutional amendment – which addressed the anomaly recorded in 1981, thus allowing the PN to form a government later that year – is also brought up by Dr Mifsud Bonnici.

This assessment, however, overlooks issues that are still brought up by the PN and its supporters: the violent incidents which took place. Given incidents such as what happened at Tal-Barrani in 1986 and Raymond Caruana’s murder a month later, didn’t Nationalists have a genuine fear about the state of the country’s democracy?

Dr Mifsud Bonnici recognises that many violent incidents occurred in those years, describing them as a “dark period.”

But he is adamant that the government was not at fault. He blames the opposition for operating a strategy of tension, insisting that it was involved in acts of physical and psychological terrorism, including regular bombings.

He also factors in the PN-led boycott of products advertised on Xandir Malta, in protest against partisan broadcasting, dismissing suggestions that this was a legitimate form of protest, regardless of the worthiness of the cause.

As for the Tal-Barrani incident, Dr Mifsud Bonnici stands by his decision to revoke a permit for the PN to hold a mass meeting in Zejtun – and to defy a court ruling on the matter – stating that he was seeking to prevent bloodshed in light of the vociferous opposition from a locality that remains, to this day, a Labourite stronghold.

The former prime minister insists that the courts failed to recognise that the right to assembly is qualified by public order considerations, comparing the situation to a football stadium in which supporters of rival teams are segregated.

PN supporters defied the law when they decided to walk towards a town whose roads were barricaded by its residents to prevent them from entering, he insists, although he does condemn the “hot-headed” Labourites who barricaded the streets. That day, he points out, he personally sought to find out if a solution was possible, but insists it was unworkable, and ultimately stands by the decisions he took then.

As f0r Mr Caruana’s death – he was inside the Gudja PN club when shots were fired from a passing car – Dr Mifsud Bonnici states that it was a “horrible act” which he condemns strongly, but adds that it should be taken in context.

He brings up another unsolved murder from the era – that of Karin Grech, the 15-year-old killed in 1977 by a parcel bomb addressed to her father Edwin, a strike-breaker during the doctors’ strike at the time. While Mr Caruana was likely killed by a Labour supporter, he argues, it was clear that Ms Grech was killed by a Nationalist-leaning one.

Pressed further to comment on the violent incidents of the time, Dr Mifsud Bonnici does admit that he regrets being unable to persuade his party’s supporters not to react to the opposition’s “provocations.” But that is as far as he goes, and while such a statement will hardly satisfy those who had opposed him, it is clear that he stands by what he has just said – and by his actions back then.